Tag: Notification
4. February 2021
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office in Poland (UODO) imposed a fine on the Medical University of Silesia in the amount of PLN 25.000 (approx. EUR 5.600). The university had suffered a data breach of which it should have notified the supervisory authority and the data subjects according to Articles 33, 34 GDPR, but failed to do so.
First indications of the data breach reached UODO in early June 2020. It was related to exams held at the end of May 2020 by videoconference on an e-learning platform. These were also being recorded. Before the exam, students were identified by their IDs or student cards, so a large amount of their personal data was documented on the recordings. After the exam was completed, the recordings were made available on the platform. However, not only the examinees had access to the platform, but also a wider group of people, about which the students had not been informed. In addition, using a direct link, any extern person could access the recordings and therefore the data of the examinees. Many students, fearing that the video would be deleted to cover up the incident, secured the file or took photographs of the computer screens to protect evidence. Eventually, the chancellor (being the decision-making unit) expressed the position that the incident of 200 people viewing the IDs of some 100-150 other people cannot be considered a personal data breach.
The controller, who was requested to clarify the situation by UODO, did not dispute the data breach. In fact, the virtual room of the platform is only available to the exam group and only those people have access to the recordings. The violation occurred because one of the employees did not close access to the virtual room after the exam. Though, the controller stated that no notification was required. In his opinion the risk to the rights or freedoms of the data subjects was low. Moreover, after the incident, the system was modified to prevent students from downloading the exam files. The controller also indicated that he identified the individuals who had done so and informed them about their criminal liability for disseminating the data.
Despite several letters from UODO, the university still omitted to report the data breach and notify the data subjects. Therefore, administrative proceedings were initiated. UODO found that the controller failed to comply with his obligations to notify both the supervisory authority and affected data subjects as well as improperly assessed the risk involved.
When imposing the fine, the President of UODO took into account the duration of the infringement (several months), the intentional action of the controller and his unsatisfactory cooperation with the supervisory authority. The fine will serve not only a repressive but also a preventive function, as it shows that the obligations arisen in connection with data breaches cannot be ignored. All the more so because an inappropriate approach to the obligations imposed by the GDPR may lead to negative consequences for those affected by the breaches.
15. January 2019
Massachusetts’ data breach law has been significantly amended by the legislation signed by Gov. Charlie Baker on 10th January becoming effective as of 11th April this year. An overview of the key changes can be found following.
The amended law requires companies to provide certain additional information when notifying the Massachusetts Attorney General and the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation about a breach of security or the reasonable believe of the existence such a breach. This information include, but are not limited to “the nature of the breach of security or unauthorized acquisition or use”, the types of personal information compromised (e.g. social security numbers), “the number of residents affected by the incident at the time of notification”, the person responsible for the breach – if known -, and whether the entity maintains a written information security program according to Massachusetts 201 CMR § 17.03.
A further update concerns the notice of the affected individuals. The amended law explicitly sets out a rolling notification to individuals under certain circumstances and prohibits therefore a company from delaying notice to affected individuals referring to the ground that the total number of individuals affected has not yet been determined. “In such case, and where otherwise necessary to update or correct the information required, a person or agency shall provide additional notice as soon as practicable and without unreasonable delay upon learning such additional information.”
If the company experiencing a data security incident is owned by another entity, the particular notification to the affected individual must specify “the name of the parent or affiliated corporation”.
Another significant change to the data breach law refers to the requirement of providing an offer of complimentary credit monitoring for “a period of not less than 18 months” (42 months, if the company is a consumer reporting agency) when a Massachusetts resident’s Social Security number has been compromised, or is reasonably believed to have been compromised, in a data security incident. Also, Companies must certify their credit monitoring services to the Massachusetts attorney general and the Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation in order to demonstrate compliance with the respective Massachusetts state law. Companies must eventually provide the credit monitoring services at no costs to the affected residents and are prohibited from asking them to waive their right to a private action as a condition for the reception of such services.
However, when these amendments become effective, beside Connecticut and Delaware, Massachusetts will have become one of those states providing a credit monitoring obligation when residents’ Social Security numbers are concerned by a breach of security. In fact, according to Public Act No. 18-90 that substitutes Senate Bill No. 472, Connecticut recently increased the required period of credit monitoring to be provided to the affected individuals from 12 to 24 months.
11. April 2016
A multimillion-dollar settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Sony Pictures Entertainment filed by former employees, whose personal data was stolen when a data bleach took place, was appoved by an US District Judge last week.
About 437,000 people were affected by the data breach from the time of the 2014 hack through 2017. In terms of the settlement Sony agreed to provide theft protection and an optional service covering up to $1 million in losses and furthermore, create a fund to cover any additional losses. As the deadline for workers to sign up for credit protection and reimbursement has not yet passed, the exact amount of money for setteling is not yet available. However, up until today Sony had to pay $7 million in order to notify the people beingt affected by the breach and to establish a fund to compensate them. Nevertheless, this amount does not take millions of dollars into account that Sony had to pay for credit monitoring services and for attorney fees. Until now, 18,000 people have signed up for the mentioned optional service retailing for $350.
During the data breach sensitive personal data concerning current and former Sony Pictures Entertainment employees was stolen and posted online. The data breach was due to hackers, who broke into the company computers and released thousands of emails, documents and sensitive personal information.
